PDA

View Full Version : Home Invasion Turns Deadly Right Down The Road


Nitesites
March 5, 2012, 03:33 PM
A home invasion occurred very recently near my residence. Some key points in the following article reinforce some ideas that have been discussed on The Firing Line recently...http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/crime-courts/2012-03-02/person-interest-sought-martinez-home-invasion.

The article does not mention whether the invaders were are armed but does go on to quote the local law enforcement deemed deadly force was indeed justifiable in this instance. Also, one of the victims/tenants was able to defend those inside armed with only a .22cal rifle (two separate points - .22cal and it was through a rifle). Further, multiple assailants are present. It seems in this particular case that only two rounds were needed; though a horrible issue, kudos to the young hero for aiming straight and true.

Any thoughts going on face value?

BarryLee
March 5, 2012, 03:42 PM
The article was unclear as to whether they kicked the door down or forced their way in after the door was opened. It sounds as if it was the later, but either way it is important to verify the identity of the person on the other side of the door before it is opened. The best locks and doors in the world are no good if we open the door.

Nitesites
March 5, 2012, 03:48 PM
True, no specific mention if the the door was opened by the victims or if the assailants busted it down. It does seem to imply that the door was opened by one of the victims and then the assailants then forced their way in.

Nitesites
March 5, 2012, 03:55 PM
Also, this is not considered a high crime rate area AFAIK. What I am implying is that though you are not looking for trouble, there are times when trouble is looking for you.

9ballbilly
March 5, 2012, 03:57 PM
Seems to me this type of home invasion crime is becoming more prevalent every year. While I don't carry at home it certainly provides sufficient justification for those who do. I do keep a loaded revolver in my nightstand and feel that as a Parent it would be irresponsible to not have the means to protect my family readily at hand.

NOTE: I live in a small house and my nightstand is never more than 2-3 seconds away.

Onward Allusion
March 5, 2012, 03:57 PM
Nitesites
Home Invasion Turns Deadly Right Down The Road

A few of things...
- Always be armed (i.e. pistol on your person)
- Lock your doors and turn the alarm (if you have on) on when you are home
- Know who you are opening your door to

There was a home invasion about a mile from our house last month. The husband was away on business. The wife answered the door and the BGs forced themselves inside, pistol whipped the people, tied them up, and took cash & jewelry.

m&p45acp10+1
March 5, 2012, 06:59 PM
One of my friends was murdered years ago in a home invasion by a couple of drug dealers that were going after a guy that shorted them in a drug deal. They went into the wrong house, ansd were shooting first. They murdered a 17 year old honor student two weeks away from graduating high school. This was in a town where pretty much the only felonies that happened were DUI's, or the rare occasion that they found in drugs in a car they pulled over.

Bad things can happen in good neighborhoods too, or in those middle of nowhere towns as well.

Hansam
March 5, 2012, 07:29 PM
Its things like this that I ALWAYS carry. I live in WI so prior to our recently enacted CCW law I couldn't carry outside my personal property. About 11 years ago I lived in an apartment with my now ex-wife and she was always complaining about how I kept a gun on me when we were at home. I told her I'd keep a gun on me when we're away from home too if I weren't breaking the law.

Anyway that year my next door neighbor (literally the next door down the hall) was the subject of a home invasion similar to this - they knocked on his door and the pushed their way in. He was stuck on the head with a flap jack, hog tied and left bleeding in a corner of his living room while they looted his apartment. I heard the noise and commotion and went to investigate. I opened my door to find three men with bandannas on their faces carrying a TV and some other electronics out of my neighbor's place. With my right hand on my 1911 carried at 3 o'clock in an OWB holster I asked them what they were doing. They all turned to look at me, saw I was armed and dropped their cargo and ran.

I went into my neighbor's place to find him tied up so I cut him loose and dialed 911. Luckily for him he only lost some electronics. The crooks hadn't made it to his bedroom yet where he kept a loaded Kel-tec 9mm in his night stand.

If he were armed he might have been able to avoid being struck, bound and robbed.

I'm always armed and I make sure I know who I'm opening the door to. Same goes with my wife.

Mello2u
March 5, 2012, 07:47 PM
The linked article is another great example of the low standard of American journalism. It is lacking in reporting the important facts.

How did the invaders gain entrance?
Who were the occupants and how many were in the apartment which was invaded?
What was the weapon used to defend? ".22-caliber rifle" is the inadequate description? It could be a rimfire or any of a number of 22 caliber center fire cartridges.
How or why is shooting the invader in the back justified in this case?

Basic newspaper journalism should objectively report the facts and answer: who, what, when, where and why.

Dwight55
March 5, 2012, 09:14 PM
This is the exact reason that my next purchase will most likely be a small 1911 with crimson trace lazer on it.

I can wear the thing appendix carry, even sitting at the computer, . . .

I've been looking, . . . haven't found the right one yet, . . . but I saw a couple of nice little ones last weekend at the gun show, . . . $1000 each.

I need something a bit less expensive.

May God bless,
Dwight

ltc444
March 5, 2012, 09:19 PM
one comment:

Good Shooting young man.

drifts1
March 5, 2012, 11:15 PM
i can think of one scenerio were i would shoot a BG in the back. If he is in between me and my loved ones and heading towards them........i'm shootin!

Hiker 1
March 5, 2012, 11:29 PM
It seems like this is starting to take on an always-carry-at-home theme, so I'll try to bring it back around.

The 15 year old kid was not carrying and repelled a home invasion with two shots from a .22.

Some thoughts -
1. Someone taught that kid to shoot and to be decisive. Good for him.
2. The .22 was probably already loaded and within easy reach. Again good.
3. In a Castle Doctrine state, which I assume Georgia is, shooting a home invader "in the back" will not likely be relevant as long as it's inside the dwelling.
4. Like all predators, BG's don't want to get hurt. Once the prey fought back, the other BG high-tailed it out of there.

rebs
March 6, 2012, 06:49 AM
IMHO forced entry is forced entry, it doesn't matter if you open the door or not. If they broke the door down or entered after you opened the door, they still forced their way in. They were not invited in.

TexasJustice7
March 6, 2012, 07:33 AM
MellowToYou: How did the invaders gain entrance?
Who were the occupants and how many were in the apartment which was invaded?
What was the weapon used to defend? ".22-caliber rifle" is the inadequate description? It could be a rimfire or any of a number of 22 caliber center fire cartridges.
How or why is shooting the invader in the back justified in this case?

I read the article of the OP. Had this happened in Texas would have been the same result. The BG might have been shot in the back when he turned to run out. Too late if he is inside the home. In fact if he had ran outside the with some loot and got shot in the back would not have mattered in Texas. Could be different in Georgia. Hope that in the future
the occupants learned a lesson, ie. to stop the instruder coming in, instead of of discovering that two of them are already inside. I prefer a heavier calibre
weapon for h/d. Perhaps the other intruder learned a lesson too. He might consider plying his trade in another state, where homeowners can't defend themselves.

Double Naught Spy
March 6, 2012, 09:32 AM
It seems in this particular case that only two rounds were needed...

Any thoughts going on face value?

Actually, we have no idea how many rounds were needed. We do know (from other articles) that two rounds were fired and struck one of the invaders who died. It may have been that the invaders would have left once they saw the gun or after just one shot being fired.

1. Someone taught that kid to shoot and to be decisive. Good for him.
4. Like all predators, BG's don't want to get hurt. Once the prey fought back, the other BG high-tailed it out of there.

Maybe the kid was taught to shoot, maybe not. It really isn't too hard to hit a human-sized target at inside home distances with a rifle (which goes back to Nitesites' reference to other threads which involve the utility of a long gun in home defense). While many rational predators don't want to get hurt, determined and drugged up predators don't always realize they are getting hurt and in the latter case, don't always have any concerns about getting hurt.

The linked article is another great example of the low standard of American journalism. It is lacking in reporting the important facts.

How did the invaders gain entrance?
Who were the occupants and how many were in the apartment which was invaded?
What was the weapon used to defend? ".22-caliber rifle" is the inadequate description? It could be a rimfire or any of a number of 22 caliber center fire cartridges.
How or why is shooting the invader in the back justified in this case?

Basic newspaper journalism should objectively report the facts and answer: who, what, when, where and why.

That is a pretty thorough contradiction, Mello2u. In the paper's defense, the paper may not have been provided by the police with the additional information you wanted and the invaded family certainly may not have wanted to speak with the cops.

So you state that journalism needs to meed your 4 W criteria, and then complain because it doesn't answer How.

The article does satisfy your stated criteria...
who - the key players are named
what - home invasion shooting
when - stated in the article
why - self defense

How did the invaders gain entrance?
Who were the occupants and how many were in the apartment which was invaded?
What was the weapon used to defend? ".22-caliber rifle" is the inadequate description? It could be a rimfire or any of a number of 22 caliber center fire cartridges.
How or why is shooting the invader in the back justified in this case?

I am not sure that any of this information is particularly necessary to print. Entry was through the door, but the paper didn't waste text in detailing this. No doubt if they would have stated it overtly, you would be complaining that the door's composition and door lock brand name were not stated.

Why do you need to know how many people were in the apartment? Even though the weapon used was stated, you think the information in inadequate. Why does the reader need to know about the cartridge type? If the cartridge type was stated, would you not need to know the construction of the bullet and the velocity at which it left the defender's barrel?

As for how or why shooting the invader in the back is justified, there is no law, not even in Georgia, that states what anatomical areas are illegal to shoot. As the shooting was obviously a self defense shooting against intruders and the law doesn't state anatomical locations, there is no reason to explain why the location of the impact is legal.

TailGator
March 6, 2012, 11:02 AM
There has been research into the effect of reaction times on the decisions to start and stop firing, and it is quite possible for an assailant to change orientation (in this instance by turning away) in the amount of time that a decision is made and acted upon by the brain, nerves, and muscles. IOW, it is quite possible that a shooter can start the process of pulling the trigger while an assailant is facing him/her and still shoot the BG in the back if he turns during the trigger pull.

IIRC, the info was from Force Institute. I'll post a link or two later if I can find it.

TexasJustice7
March 6, 2012, 01:09 PM
Tailgator: There has been research into the effect of reaction times on the decisions to start and stop firing, and it is quite possible for an assailant to change orientation (in this instance by turning away) in the amount of time that a decision is made and acted upon by the brain, nerves, and muscles. IOW, it is quite possible that a shooter can start the process of pulling the trigger while an assailant is facing him/her and still shoot the BG in the back if he turns during the trigger pull.

IIRC, the info was from Force Institute. I'll post a link or two later if I can find it.

In reference to your comment mentioning the BG being shot in the back, and the decision time to stop firing, in a book I have by Michael Martin on Concealed Carry it quotes the Tempe Study, regarding an attacker being shot in the back and says that 2/10s of a second the BG could complete that movement of turning and the defender might require 5/10 of a second to stop shooting. I figure that might have been what actually happened here.
BG saw the gun, started turning to run, got shot in the back before the
15 year old boy could stop his reaction to the BG. :)

Onward Allusion
March 6, 2012, 02:13 PM
Hiker 1
It seems like this is starting to take on an always-carry-at-home theme, so I'll try to bring it back around.

The 15 year old kid was not carrying and repelled a home invasion with two shots from a .22.

Ah, but if the kid was carrying - it may have only taken a single shot or no shots at all. :D

JN01
March 6, 2012, 04:33 PM
He was stuck on the head with a flap jack

That pancake must have been coated with maple syrup. Damn IHOP will sell those things to anyone. Where is Sarah Brady when you need her? :D

On a serious note, bad things can happen anywhere. Being armed wherever and whenever you can just seems prudent.

skoro
March 6, 2012, 08:25 PM
Good shooting, young man.

One can only imagine what would have happened if the criminals would have had a free hand in that apartment.

dabigguns357
March 6, 2012, 08:43 PM
And this is why i set up security camera's and carry at home at all times.

Hiker 1
March 6, 2012, 11:29 PM
Ah, but if the kid was carrying - it may have only taken a single shot or no shots at all.

Not really relevant as very few, if any, 15 year olds are going to be carrying at home.

Hiker 1
March 6, 2012, 11:30 PM
Actually, we have no idea how many rounds were needed. We do know (from other articles) that two rounds were fired and struck one of the invaders who died. It may have been that the invaders would have left once they saw the gun or after just one shot being fired.

Yes, but the OP asked for thoughts on the face value of the article, not analysis of incomplete information.

Mello2u
March 7, 2012, 01:16 AM
Double Naught Spy,

The linked article only described the firearm as: "a .22-caliber rifle".
That could be anything from a bolt action .22 rim fire to an AR15 which fires a 5.56x39 center fire cartridge which is much more powerful. Also, the AR15 is often referred to by the "antis" as an Assault Weapon! OMG!

We should not assume what the weapon was. The article should identify it. I'd like to know if an "Assault Weapon" was used to defend a home. If so, it would be nice to use this information when someone states that assault weapons are useless to law abiding people. But I can't because the article does not tell us what the rifle was.

I would like to know how the invaders gained entry. Might learn something from someone's mistake.

The article does state: "The 15-year-old will not be charged because his actions are considered justifiable homicide, according to sheriff’s Capt. Steve Morris." I am not a reporter. But, I have seen reporters dig for more from authorities to get more than a statement. I would like to know the reasoning behind this. I live in Georgia and would like all the information I can get of this type, that I don't have to spend blood or money to get.

The article did answer who, when and where; but in my opinion failed to answer what and why.
What was the weapon used to defend the home?
Why did the sheriff's department decide this was a justified shooting?

I am not passing judgment on the actions of the people involved in the shooting. I really want to know those facts about this incident.

TailGator
March 8, 2012, 11:56 AM
a book I have by Michael Martin on Concealed Carry it quotes the Tempe Study, regarding an attacker being shot in the back and says that 2/10s of a second the BG could complete that movement of turning and the defender might require 5/10 of a second to stop shooting.

Yes, thanks - that is the kind of thing I was remembering. I didn't read that book or the Tempe Study, but it sounds like it parallels the material I read. I have been swamped and haven't had a chance to find a link. These kind of findings, along with the scenario of a fleeing person taking pot shots over their shoulder, make it plain that is an oversimplification to think that you can't shoot someone in the back in self defense.

matthew261
March 8, 2012, 12:15 PM
Sounds like a justified shooting to me. Stand your ground laws and castle laws were implemented for just such scenarios.

As for around the house carry, I always have at least my NA Arms .22 magnum in my pocket and many times a .357 magnum J-frame. Waking hours home invasions are on the rise around here.

Onward Allusion
March 8, 2012, 12:56 PM
Hiker 1
Ah, but if the kid was carrying - it may have only taken a single shot or no shots at all.

Not really relevant as very few, if any, 15 year olds are going to be carrying at home.

Missed the big smiley, eh? ;)

armoredman
March 8, 2012, 01:01 PM
Mr Brown will be turning up very shortly on national television in front of a Congressional committee asking that he be provided a bullet resistant vest so as to level the playing field in his particular line of endeavor.
Good shooting, young man, I hope he works through any trauma quickly.

Double Naught Spy
March 10, 2012, 12:24 PM
Got it, Mello2u. The article represents a low standard of journalism because it doesn't answer all the questions you have.

It is interesting to look over various historic events, criminal reports, etc. and come up with questions not addressed they way we would have liked, or in the reporter's/officer's presentation of information to answer certain questions, we are spurred to consider additional questions which are not answered. That is a kind of nature of the beast. Only you can come up with answers to all of your questions and regardless of how thorough somebody else reports information, there are always going to be questions.

Did you notice from the article that there is still an open investigation? The lack of information you want isn't necessarily the fault of journalists either. Law enforcement has a long history of only repleasing limited information and sometimes repleasing incorrect information. This is especially true of open cases.

The article did answer who, when and where; but in my opinion failed to answer what and why.
What was the weapon used to defend the home?
Why did the sheriff's department decide this was a justified shooting?

Once again, the weapon used was a .22 rifle. The the information isn't sufficient to support your assault weapon agenda probably isn't a concern of the police, reporter, or others.

As for why the sheriff's department considered the shooting justified, I don't understand what it is that you are clear on in this matter? You have a forced entry home invasion by multiple people and the renter's son shoots and kills one of the invaders and you don't know what it is justified?

Of course you could have looked at the article and noted that it was days old when posted here. You could have simple pulled out some of the key words such as the names mentioned in the article and Googled them or searched the same newspaper to see if there was new information. You might have been surprised by some of it. For example...
http://newstimes.augusta.com/latest-news/2012-03-04/three-arrests-made-in-fatal-martinez-burglary

Stevie-Ray
March 11, 2012, 03:48 PM
The article did answer who, when and where; but in my opinion failed to answer what and why.
What was the weapon used to defend the home?
Why did the sheriff's department decide this was a justified shooting?

I am not passing judgment on the actions of the people involved in the shooting. I really want to know those facts about this incident.I don't. I don't much care as long as LE decided justification. It's clear there were uninvited strangers with ill-intent in the home. I see a happy ending here, as long as the kid is OK with it. I won't get into how much happier it could have been.